Re: Reasons for keeping sc(4) and libvgl ?

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 22:59:49 +0700
Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> wrote:

> 26.11.2021 22:04, Emmanuel Vadot wrote:
> 
> >  For libvgl it probably made sense back in the 90s but does it now ??
> 
> I enjoyed games/digger-vgl for a while in VGA console :-)
> 
> >  Based on my small list I don't see any good reason to keep sc(4) but
> > maybe I've missed something bigger so please let me know.
> > 
> >  P.S.: I'm really not interested by people saying stuff like 
> >  "I've always used sc(4), it works for me don't touch it"
> >  without some technical argument.
> 
> sc(4) is still better quality for BIOS-based systems or EFI-based with CSM legacy mode working.

 Why ?

> sc(4) is better to such an extent FreeBSD's unusable with vt(4) for some fresh systems being sold
> but boots and works fine with sc(4). An example with many people complaining:
> 
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230172

 Better as in it doesn't respect the specs ?
 You said yourself in this PR that we should blame the manufacturer.
 Now if you want to work on making hw.vga.acpi_ignore_no_vga better in
loader based on the smbios info and some quirk table please go ahead.
 But don't say that sc(4) is better because it works on buggy hardware
as it ignores some stuff.

> I'd like more FreeBSD developers respect POLA these days
> and take responds like "I've always used sc(4), it works for me don't touch it" seriously.
> 
> Please, don't touch what works and works good.
> 

 Why POLA ?
 I'm asking for reasons to keep sc(4), how the hell is that POLA to ask
some questions ?

-- 
Emmanuel Vadot <manu@bidouilliste.com> <manu@freebsd.org>